What changed between these versions
A substantive modification was made to the required content of regulatory impact analyses. Section 2(3)(C) of v2 removes the requirement for agencies to analyze a "no action by the Federal Government" alternative when considering major rules, streamlining the list of required alternatives. A minor punctuation change was also made in Section 2(2)(B).
Overview
A very limited number of changes were made, primarily one substantive modification and one minor textual adjustment. · V2 slightly narrows the scope of required regulatory alternatives for agencies, removing a specific "no action" consideration.
The most significant change in v2 is the removal of the "no action by the Federal Government" alternative from the list of regulatory alternatives that agencies must analyze for major rules under Section 202(c)(1)(B). This streamlines the analysis requirements by focusing on active regulatory approaches. All other major provisions, including new definitions, enhanced stakeholder consultation, OIRA responsibilities, and judicial review, remain unchanged.
Modifications
Agencies promulgating major rules are no longer explicitly mandated to analyze a scenario where the Federal Government takes no action. This could potentially streamline the regulatory analysis process by focusing on active intervention alternatives, but it removes a specific baseline comparison point for evaluating the necessity and impact of a proposed rule.
Before
V1 required that regulatory impact analyses for major rules include an analysis of a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, specifically listing alternatives that "require no action by the Federal Government," use incentives, provide information, or employ other flexible options.
After
V2 removes "require no action by the Federal Government" from the list of specific alternatives that must be analyzed. The list now begins directly with alternatives that "use incentives and market-based means."
This is a minor grammatical and formatting adjustment with no operative policy impact. It ensures proper sentence structure in the enumeration of definitions.
Before
V1 amended paragraph (2) of 2 U.S.C. 1502 by striking the period at the end and inserting "and".
After
V2 amends paragraph (2) of 2 U.S.C. 1502 by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and".
Scope
Minor adjustment within existing scope — Changes are highly concentrated in one specific subsection related to the content requirements for regulatory impact analyses. — V2 represents a minor refinement within the existing policy direction of requiring regulatory impact analyses, by slightly narrowing the scope of alternatives that must be considered. It does not fundamentally alter the overall policy. — The change to required alternatives in Section 202(c)(1)(B) directly impacts the scope of analysis agencies must perform when complying with the broader regulatory impact analysis requirements.
Impact analysis
Federal agencies promulgating major rules
Procedural change, potentially reducing the burden or scope of analysis for agencies by removing a specific, mandated alternative for consideration.
Agencies are no longer explicitly required to include an analysis of a "no action by the Federal Government" alternative in their regulatory impact analyses.